Two years hence, Oracle's stewardship of Java continues to raise user and vendor ire, this time due to modularization, licensing, and security concerns. 'Plans for version 8 of Java Platform Standard Edition, which is due next year, call for inclusion of Project Jigsaw to add modular capabilities to Java. But some organizations are concerned with how Oracle's plans might conflict with the OSGi module system already geared to Java. In the licensing arena, Canonical, the maker of Ubuntu Linux, says Oracle is no longer letting Linux distributors redistribute Oracle's own commercial Java, causing difficulties for the company. Meanwhile, security vendor F-Secure views Java as security hindrance.'

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Oracle's management of Java, however this news article reads more "propaganda" than journalism.

Introduction of vendor projects conflicting with established open source ones happen all the time... even in Java (NetBeans/Eclipse, Glassfish/JBoss, etc).

Yet, I understand it's still news (not sensational, but still important). Nevertheless, the editor feels the need to include Canonical not being able to re-distribute Java -- which was already discussed here. And F-Spot's comment, neither having any relation whatsoever to modularization in Java.

"Yet, I understand it's still news (not sensational, but still important). Nevertheless, the editor feels the need to include Canonical not being able to re-distribute Java -- which was already discussed here"

Are you complaining that an author from infoworld is talking about something already discussed on osnews? I for one don't mind the inclusion of the licensing facts in the article, but what are you proposing osnews do about it?

"Please mark opinion and news articles properly."

That seems to be more trouble than it's worth, it would cause debate over something not worth debating. Just take all articles for what they are, the view of the author.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Oracle's management of Java, however this news article reads more "propaganda" than journalism.

Introduction of vendor projects conflicting with established open source ones happen all the time... even in Java (NetBeans/Eclipse, Glassfish/JBoss, etc).

Yet, I understand it's still news (not sensational, but still important). Nevertheless, the editor feels the need to include Canonical not being able to re-distribute Java -- which was already discussed here. And F-Spot's comment, neither having any relation whatsoever to modularization in Java.

For more information: The JCP under Oracle is no longer deadlocked like it was under Sun, features that were delayed are becoming included and Oracle is standardising on OpenJDK as the mainline… so Linux distros do not require a bloody argreement to distribute.

As for it being an attack vector: it has hundreds of millions of installs, just like Flash, Windows, etc. It is par for the course. Keep up to date and you shall be better than most.